> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:05 PM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/8] ethdev: support of multiple sizes of > redirection table > > 2014-10-28 00:37, Zhang, Helin: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > 2014-10-22 19:53, Helin Zhang: > > > > +#define RTE_BIT_WIDTH_64 (CHAR_BIT * sizeof(uint64_t)) > > > > > > How can it be different of 64? > > > Using 64 would be simpler to understand than RTE_BIT_WIDTH_64. > > > > > > > + uint8_t reta[RTE_BIT_WIDTH_64]; /**< 64 redirection table > > > > entries. */ > > We always try to use macro in code to replace numeric, this can get the > > numeric > more understandable. > > How bit width 64 is more understandable than 64? > Especially when you count a number of entries, not a bit width. > RETA_ENTRIES_MAX would be more understandable. Renaming the macro is needed. I plan to rename it to RTE_RETA_GROUP_SIZE, as it is a group of 64 reta entries, but not the maximum number of valid entries.
> > -- > Thomas Regards, Helin
